500 words a day on whatever I want

The Arab trader argument

The Arab trader argument is my name for an argument white Americans often use to defend the evil they do in the world. It goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all right – or at least not all that bad – so long as they can find at least one example from world history of someone else doing the same thing. Thus the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!

See how it works? Pretty cool trick.

Not!

The thing is utterly morally bankrupt. It is the everyone-does-it argument that we tried when we were eight . Our mothers did not buy it then and it does not work now – except maybe for the morally blind.

But that is just what many white Americans seem to be: morally blind. They know the evil that is done in their name, not just in the past but even now, but they do not want to see it. And when they are faced with it, they try to excuse it with stuff like this.

Maybe moral blindness leads to morally broken thinking – or is it the other way round?

It would be like if I robbed a bank and then said, “People rob banks all the time, what is the big deal?” Or if I slept with someone’s wife and I said, “Your wife had an affair two years ago. See! I am not that bad. Why are you angry at me?”

Do you see how shameless this kind of argument is?

It amazes me that anyone even tries it, for two reasons:

That anyone would waste more than two seconds trying to excuse something so clearly evil, like the slave trade, the Japanese American prison camps, racism, etc.

That they would try to use such a bad argument with a straight face and not see just how bad it is.

But they do it.

It seems to bring comfort to them, but that comfort is completely one-sided. It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil. Like when the Jews were being sent to the death camps, did it bring any comfort to them to know that the Turks killed over a million Armenians?

Forms of this argument:

This is the way we have always done it

Blacks do it too

Blacks are racist too

There will always be racists

Right and wrong are not determined or proved by what everyone does, much less by what some people do, like Arab traders. That would just excuse everyone to sink to the lowest, meanest, most evil levels of behaviour.

A simple and far better way to determine right and wrong, without getting deep into religion or philosophy, is the Golden Rule, which is not “Do unto others as some others have done”, as the Arab trader argument would have it, but “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Acts of racism fail this test by their very nature.

This is my favorite (this tactic was very often used by a white woman who had a feminist blog where she consistently silenced black women while trumpeting her personal sacrifice of giving birth to biracial kids): “Slavery happened centuries ago. It’s time to get over it. On the other hand, white women have been oppressed going back thousands of years. We must never forget this.”
Privileged much.

Slavery happened centuries ago. It’s time to get over it. On the other hand, white women have been oppressed going back thousands of years. We must never forget this.

Nearly spit out my coffee reading that. Good grief.

Side note:
I do have to admit I’m a sucker for diversionary statements and ridiculous questions. I’m easy to distract that way because I enjoy going off on a tangent. So if you ever catch me feeding the trolls, as I am wont to do, please redirect me to the topic at hand. Trust that I won’t be offended. 🙂

“It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil.” That’s hilarious. If whites didn’t exist stopped their “evil” as you put it, your standards of living would fall right back to where they were 200-300 years ago.

Personally, I would not be opposed to this. If blacks want their independence, that’s fine, just don’t expect whites to continue feeding your populations. Abagond, look at yourself. You’re a racist. Let me know when you, as a black man, are ready to apologize and pay reparations to the Khoisan for your ancestors having nearly exterminated them. If you take a long, objective look at history, you’ll realize that history is all about superior groups conquering (and sometimes, exterminating) inferior ones. This tendency is common to all of humanity (and indeed, to all living things) and is not exclusive to the white race. If you’re still alive today, you can be sure it’s because your ancestors at some point mercilessly crushed a competing group (either that, or they got lucky).

This is just the kind of thinking my post is talking about – excusing the evil that whites do by pointing out the evil done by others. Like that makes it right or something. It is morally bankrupt thinking.

May I ask which feminist website because there are several feminist who think like her just because she gives birth to Black children, she thinks that absolves her of being racist. That’s the type of thinking I get from White feminists who dismiss the unique histories of Women of Color in order to point their brand of being oppressed by their White men for centuries.

temple Says:This is my favorite (this tactic was very often used by a white woman who had a feminist blog where she consistently silenced black women while trumpeting her personal sacrifice of giving birth to biracial kids): “Slavery happened centuries ago. It’s time to get over it. On the other hand, white women have been oppressed going back thousands of years. We must never forget this.”
Privileged much.

This is why you should never buy into feminist propoganda.
Not once do feminists ever explain how women have been oppressed.

This blogger recently went private & I prefer not to give the blog name. Being silenced is a very common experience among black women & other women of color in feminism. It’s happened to me IRL & in the blog world quite often–often enough that I’ve faced the reality that not all women are my allies.

This is my favorite (this tactic was very often used by a white woman who had a feminist blog where she consistently silenced black women while trumpeting her personal sacrifice of giving birth to biracial kids): “Slavery happened centuries ago. It’s time to get over it. On the other hand, white women have been oppressed going back thousands of years. We must never forget this.”

Of course having black children has made her an authority on black issues. As for the white women being oppressed for thousands of years, what about racialized women? Did she address this?

@abagond:
‘That they would try to use such a bad argument with a straight face and not see just how bad it is.’

Why would they? When maintaining their power,it is not in their best interest to do so. They may be oblivious to these facts.

@abagond:
It seems to bring comfort to them, but that comfort is completely one-sided. It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil. Like when the Jews were being sent to the death camps, did it bring any comfort to them to know that the Turks killed over a million Armenians?

Forms of this argument:

* This is the way we have always done it
* Blacks do it too
* Blacks are racist too
* There will always be racists
Many whites possess a different moral compass than do racialized people. Many do-not have an inkling as to this lack either consciously or sub-consciously. The ones who do and are aware will try to debunk your arguments through condescending diversionary tactics which only serves to berate and humiliate the racialized person. This is particularly effective as it lets the racialized person know just exactly what you think of them and their group without resorting to racist name calling or your inherent superiority. Best of all, It makes them feel better as they have(in their mind) reinforced their self-perception that they are not racist. They are Just resorting to a logical explanations of how things really are. In effect, they are infantalizing the racialized person.
It works. I know this. Why? If one responds to their arguement and gets progressively angry, it reinforces the stereotypes they may already have of your racialized group, puffing them up further. This is why they throw in facts unrelated to the topic at hand. This throws you off kilter. Unless you have a photographic memory and can pull facts out the air at random, you may be at a loss as to how to respond effectively. This enforces their notion of your group as having sub-intelligence. If you try to deflect the impact of the arguement via comic relief, then you are a buffoon who doesn’t understand anyway. This is also a reflection of your groups mindset. If you respond with dumbness, then you are too stupid to in the first place, also reflective of your groups’ intelligence and inability to debate such things; at this point they may become paternalistic as if teaching a child. This has happened to me throughout the years. If you learn to argue and counteract these arguments you’re dismissed as an exception or as uppity. You can’t win for loosing! My reaction now is to tell them that I have no wish to engage them. This angers them as they can not dazzle you with their brilliance and emphasize your, and by extension your groups, lack thereof. You know what? I don’t care anymore, go dazzle someone else with your b********! The ones who are open to changing their white supremset mindset are relatively rarer.

Yes but your ideological kin do the same thing all the time Abagond. For example, the Crusades are quite often used in EXACTLY the same manner to justify Islamic violence that occurs quite plentifully today.

(This despite the fact the the Crusades were largely a response to Islamic aggression and militancy in the first place).

Ultimately, your article here is null and void because your comrades do it all the time; they are guilty of the very thing you so righteously mock.

First off: I abhor slavery and I view it as a point of shame for whites. With this in mind:

The arab slave trade is highly relevant when it comes to grievances concerning the white slave trade.

It is incredibly important to point out that the arab slave trade lasted well over ONE THOUSAND years, and that the white slave trade is given a maximum timeline of 2 to 3 centuries.

It is also important to note that the arabs were far more inhuman, cruel and brutal to their slaves than were the whites.
Moreover, despite the immorality and atrocities of the slave trades, the whites at least left a few benefits where they practiced colonialism: roads, electricity, water treatment, literacy, etc etc were often left behind in many communities that were under white colonial rule.

***

So why I am saying this? Again, I do not point to the arabs to try and EXCUSE white slavery. Slavery is inexcusable. I point to the arab slave trade because so much focus and attention is given to the white slave trade which was far shorter, far less brutal and at least had some benefits.

Since the arab slave trade was far worse by ALL MEASURES, why aren’t people getting after the arabs about it? This is what I find so absurd about this entire article- you point out all the terrible things about slavery but you are ready to dismiss a brutal slave trade that lasted over a MILLENIUM in order to attack whites.

Given that slavery is such an important part of your history and a continued point of contention between blacks and other races, why aren’t you pursuing the arabs who’ve committed this crime on a much much much greater scale? Why do you readily dismiss their crimes?

I’m quite sure I know why: you will find no sympathy from the arabs. But you will from whites.

“It is also important to note that the arabs were far more inhuman, cruel and brutal to their slaves than were the whites.”

I’m no expert on the subject, but I know enough to know that that’s an over-simplification.

Since the arab slave trade was far worse by ALL MEASURES, why aren’t people getting after the arabs about it?

1. People do often mention the Arab slave trade. That’s what the post is about.

2. Consequences.

People are still suffering from the after-effects of Arab clonialism (Darfur is a tragic, potent example.) HOWEVER, I would argue that mre peole are suffering because of the after-effects of white colonialism. This makes discussion of white colonialism and slave-ownership more pertinent.

Some of my ancestors were probably enslaved by ancient Romans. And that was an immoral thing. HOWEVER, it does not directly affect my life now. I will not be treated any worse because some of my ancestors were slaves. I will not be denied a job or a promotion because of it. I am not ging to be shot by the police because of it. I am needn’t worry that in in emergency, paramedics will try less hard to save my life beause of it. The Roman idea of Britain being full of barbarian hordes has stopped being believed.

However, many people still believe that PoC, especially blacks, aren’t completely human. The transatlantic slave-trade was abolished, but the idea of black sub-humanity is still left over and still having negative consequences. That is why the transatlantic slave-trade is directly relevant to modern-day politics.

Also, abagond is an America, writing in the English language. The majority of his readers are Amercan. White slave-ownership has more immediate personal relevance to an American readership than other examples of slave-owning societies.

3. He is not saying that the Arab slave trade was remotely ok. He is just saying that 2 wrongs cannot ever make a right.

If you disagree, then when your wife catches you with another woman all you have to do is say this: “I know what I did was wrong, but my friend Joe has been cheating on his wife WAY LONGER than me. And he beats her too. Please keep that in mind!”

And if she continues to be angry at you, say this: “Why are you so angry at me but not at my friend? I mean, he is way worse than me! You are being unfair.”

And then do not forget to pat yourself on the back and say: “The only reason you are angry at me is because you will find no sympathy from him but you will from me.”

To pick up on what Sanabitur Anima said, I know no one who has been affected by the Arab slave trade nor do I live in a country that has been shaped and continues to be shaped by that trade. That is quite untrue about the Atlantic slave trade.

The degree of dehumanization of blacks and moral blindness of whites required by that trade still live on. That is why I had to write this post in the first place.

There was also a difference in the Arab/African slave trade vs the European one. They had a unique brand of cruelty which dictated that even a drop of Black blood made one a slave. So European slavery led slaves and their descendants into neverending perpetual slavery.

In contrast, the descendants of Arab and African slaves were born free,were given same rights and were free to intermarry.

If you ask any African living in Africa if they descended from a conquered slave class, they prob wouldn’t know. They’ve prob been treated as an equal their whole life. They can go out and get a job,not get followed in stores or stopped by police.

Ask a Black living in a White country where slavery was practiced hundreds of years ago what their life is like…..jobs,respect, etc,,, and you’ll see that European slavery mentality still exists…It hasn’t ended…on paper only

Abagond I can see how you’d interpret my reasoning the way you did, but I can assure you that’s not at all what I meant. (I’d be embarrassed to ever resort to that cheap kind of pseudo-reasoning.)

In short,this is what I meant to convey:

Whenever I see people talking about the slave trade and its horrors, it boggles my mind how the best example of slavery that human history has to offer, the ARAB SLAVE TRADE, is never mentioned and is seldom taught in school. You’d be surprised how few people actually know about the arab slave trade, despite its sheer length and magnitude.

(I realize that this article has the arab slave trade as its headline but the topic was just used to segue into the white slave trade) But I understand that you blog about the atlantic slave trade since you live in the USA. I understand that.

However I’m curious, what do people here think about pursuing reparations from arabs and their slave trade?

It seems pretty clear that I will have to do a post on the Arab slave trade itself since it keeps coming up and some commenters act as if I am not seeing the light that they see. But that is not the subject of this particular post.

I did not bring up the Arab slave trade to segue into the Atlantic one. I brought it up because it is used to make a bad moral argument to defend white racism, an argument that comes up in different forms. A form of pseudo-reasoning, as you put it.

This is a great article that does a great job of throwing light upon this argument which is used in many forms and many places (not least the emphasis by those in NeoConfederate movements to highlight Lincoln’s racism and thereby absolve the sins of the South)- I’m glad you’ve started a great discussion here.

Being a student and scholar of Race in the US, I would also point out that while Slavery has (and unfortunately still does) exist(ed) across the world and across the centuries, racialized slavery was novel to the New World in general and the US in particular. In no other place and at no other time had an institution of heritable and permanent chattel slavery existed, nor has it existed since, on the scale and to the degree practiced by peoples of European descent on peoples of African descent. That set of facts is undeniable.

But how can whites constantly be singled out and berated and be condescended to if everyone did it? It’s like if 100 people robbed 100 banks but we’re only going to punish the one who made the most money off of it.

While I do agree that whites do use this and I’m not trying to excuse their actions. I think that it’s a human reaction not to wanting your group or culture being look at as horrible amd unhuman. Everybody wants to believe that their group that they represent is good. While whites have the arab trade agruement, Blacks have the well, at least, they didn’t go through slavery agruement towards gays and other non-black ethnic groups. They’ll use the same book to dehumanize gays that was used to take away their idenity and justify slavery. Maybe I feel this way because I’m experience racism both sides.

You are using the Arab Trader argument to defend the Arab Trader argument.

The Arab Trader argument says that it is not so bad to do x because other people do it too. But that is a very poor way to determine whether something is moral or not. Whatever x is, you will almost always find other people doing it.

My own rule of thumb: an argument that could defend cannibalism probably has something wrong with it.

If someone attempts to justify the transatlantic slave trade by mentioning the Arab slave trade then yes that is a reprehensible argument. However bringing up the Arab slave trade is a legitimate response to racist nonsense attempting to paint slavery as being something unique to “White people” or something that “White people” should guilty about, just as it’s legitimate to mention non-Islamic terrorism in order to counter bigoted filth attempting to portray terrorism as something unique to Muslims. If it’s wrong to respond to racist arguments that portray slavery strictly as a white evil then Tim Wise is also just as wrong for citing statistics about White crime in order to demolish White supremaicst propaganda that claims that African-Americans are a uniquely criminal racial group. There is a clear difference between a rational discussion of the transatlantic slave trade and a racist screed portraying Whites as collectively guilt of slavery while ignoring non-Western forms of slavery or White victims of slavery (over three million Eastern Europeans were enslaved by the Crimean Khanate).

Unfortunately as much as you have a point? Some people especially PoC try to derail any discussion of the multifacted nature of racism and history by using this argument as if the mere discussion of historical issues and how it has affected the world today is somehow making excuses for another dark and inhuman part of history.

So even if you’re just talking about the Trans-sahara slave trade, you’re likely to get someone breaking in to the conversation to harass you about how you’re supposedly using it to negate the evil that the western world has done. Even if the trans-atlantic slave trade hasn’t been mentioned.

At the end of the day, what Hitler did to the Jews does not eclipse, remove or erase any other genocide that has happened in history. It is wrong to point at another genocide and use that to try and say that Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy, it is not wrong to simply talk about historical genocides including the holocaust in general and what was behind them.

Besides most people do not deny that the trans-atlantic slave trade was inhuman, cruel and downright evil, but some of us do get tired of it being treated as the only slave trade in the history of the world evah cos PoC just “don’t do that sort of thing” in some people’s minds backed up by people attempting to shut down any discussion that might dispell the illusion that white people are the only people capable of true evil.

The difficulty with using this Arab Trader argument to account for something like the African Transatlantic slave trade is one of degree and magnitude. It also shows a lack of awareness of the scope and dimensions involved.

One way to recognize or begin to appreciate this is to use another analogy:

Imagine a small grocery store. Like Groceries ‘R’ Us. They rapidly expand to include other items like clothing, then maybe electrical goods. Other groups watch this and begin to get in on the act. Soon there are lots of small and large Groceries, Clothes and Electrical goods ‘ R ‘ Us all over the country.

Suddenly, there emerges a big, gigantic Groceries ‘R’ Us. Its bigger than anything that has gone before its called Walmart it expands all over the country but then it gets even bigger. It expands to other countries as well. It takes over and swallows up existing Groceries ‘R’ Us. stores all over the planet. It becomes a monster. But because its grown so big and has a branch in every country on the planet it starts to be the main grocery store most people recognize and go to.

Its now hard to remember a time when going to a grocery store didn’t mean going to a Walmart.

The African Transatlantic slave trade became that Walmart Before this there only used to be Groceries ‘R’ Us and every country had their own one. In fact some still do.

“Some people especially PoC try to derail any discussion of the multifacted nature of racism and history by using this argument as if the mere discussion of historical issues and how it has affected the world today is somehow making excuses for another dark and inhuman part of history.”

@ Dawn

Hey Dawn, it’s difficult to say whether you are making a valid point or not. So let me ask you this.

Please simply link to 2 or more examples of what you’re talking about. I think that’s fair. You have an entire internet to draw from. I’m not even saying that what you describe doesn’t exist… after all, everything happens, at least once or twice, somewhere on the internet. Just post a few examples of it.

Islamic slavery was just as vast and it lasted much longer than Western slavery; the Saudis ‘abolished’ in the late 20th century and there has never been an Islamic abolition movement. The trade has deeply scarred Africa as evidenced by the massacres of Arabs by Blacks during the Zanzibar revolution. The idea that the transatlantic slave trade was the first major form of slavery is absurd; the Mongols for example practiced mass murder and slavery on an industrial scale.

However anyone brining up non-Western forms of slavery to counter legitimate discussion of American slavery is defending slavery. However if someone was to bring up slavery in order to demonize ‘Whites’ then yes I would bring up such things as Islamic slavery or the type of slavery practiced by the Imperial Japanese army that would be a legitimate argument much like an African-American citing ‘White’ crime groups and gangs to respond to racists attempting to demonize Blacks as a uniquely criminal people

You do seem to have problems when it comes to trying to make connections or comparisons. Particularly when scales of degree, magnitude and depth are involved.

Surprisingly enough though you don’t seem to have this as a problem when it comes to making comparisons between the plight of the Palestinians and Jews. And in particular the roles of Nazi Germeny and Israel.

I extracted these comments from your own blog:

“Does a Holocaust survivor have the right to speak his mind and say ‘what happened to me during the Holocaust, I see it happening again to Palestinians, Never Again for Anyone.’ Should he be labeled an anti-Semite for such statements?”

This is nothing more than a crude attempt to equate Israel with nazi Germany and the Palestinians with the Jews; a hateful and ignorant comparison. Does anyone recall Jewish suicide bombings? Has Israel killed over four million people? Any honest individual with a fifth grader’s command of history can see that Emperor’s garbage is a thinly veiled anti-Semitic attack.

What is it that you see that is so unique to Jewish, genocidal, holocaust experience that you are unable to see in the African, genocidal, holocaust experience?

Which incidentally lasted over 500 years as an institution but left a legacy that Africa and its diasporic peoples are still left traumatically dealing with. On top of which is a continent that has and continues to be plundered and exploitered for its natural resources to the obvious detriment of its own people?

And you believe Islamic slavery had a greater impact? Or are you just unable to equate the sufferings of anyone non-Jewish with horrors of the Jewish holocaust?

Incidentally. If you really wish to understand why anyone would even attempt to equate what Israel is doing to the Palestinians with Nazi Germany – they may not be quite there yet. But they are heading down that direction – you should have a look at this documentary. Its very graphic in detail:

OK, ok, you don’t like the Arab trader theory that contemporary whites owe less than zero to blacks.

How about this one:

“I don’t care, and I refuse to be held liable, and I will fight to the death against any black-slavery-reparations-debt-collectors.

Come on and try to take my house and my family. Come get your repamarations. In the end, I don’t give a fig about your arguments, I think they are bullshit, I am not swayed in the least by any theory of “white guilt” or, to use the modern Tim Wise euphemism, “white responsibiltity.” I repudiate it all.

I think you owe us, and you can make the debt good by returning to Africa.

OK, ok, you don’t like the Arab trader theory that contemporary whites owe less than zero to blacks.

That’s not what the argument entails. The argument has nothing to do with ‘reparmations’, it is a evasive tactic to draw attention from themselves. However, if you wish to ‘contribute to my own ‘repamarations, my email address is: herneith@blowitoutyourhole.com. I take banker’s cheques, money orders, wire transfers if you are sending money internationally, crdit cards and PayPal.

“I don’t care, and I refuse to be held liable, and I will fight to the death against any black-slavery-reparations-debt-collectors.

Hey now! Think of the tax write-off!

Come on and try to take my house and my family. Come get your repamarations.

I’m not interested in trailor homes. Do you live in a mansion? I’ll take that! Your family? Sorry, I am not interested in inbred people, too many potential problems.

In the end, I don’t give a fig about your arguments,

How about a figleaf?:

I am not swayed in the least by any theory of “white guilt” or, to use the modern Tim Wise euphemism, “white responsibiltity.” I repudiate it all.

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” Mark Twain.

“The thing is utterly morally bankrupt. It is the everyone-does-it argument that we tried when we were eight . Our mothers did not buy it then and it does not work now – except maybe for the morally blind.”

I think you will find that most people bring up the Arab slave trade, not to make the European slave trade look better by comparison, but more to try and dispell the popular notion that only white people were responsible for the slave trade. What both the whites and the Arabs did was terrible, though to be fair i don’t think people should blame the slave trade on entire races of people. I was carried out solely by and for a small minority of rich elites. The average European or Arab peasant would not have had any involvement, most were probably weren’t even aware of the atrocities that were being commited in Africa and the other parts of the world, heck they were probably treated like slaves themselves, by the rich lords and land owners. They were bad times to be poor anywhere in the world.

The transatlantic slave trade was a disgusting and horrible crime against humanity with repercussions even today. Now that I have said this so no one think im some kind of apologist or something I will get to my point. Because to be honest the main diffrence between the Arab slave trade and the Transatlantic slave trade of black Africans, is that the arab slave trade has actually NEVER stopped. Still happening in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen Mauretania… it has kept happening (on a smaller scale today of course) and this has been going on for AT LEAST a millenia. (Though most likely around 1400 years) but when you discuss this with an average muslim(black or arab)they completly shut down, you can show them pictures from the FIFTIES with Saudiarabian families with their black slaves and they still go “Allah! everyone is equal in Islam Muhammed is great!!!!!! What about the crusades 800 years ago!!! Christians are just as bad” just the typical deflections And this just shows that in this sad part of history the slavery apologists have succesfully shaped our view of slavery as an only white on black occurance. And even bringing the up the arab slavery in a discussion about slavery can seen as derailong and racist (??) (English is not my native language so my text is perhaps a little badly written but I hope you get my argument)

So a white guy, a black guy, and an arab guy assault a black guy. What guys like Macon don’t understand is that if we’re going to be shoveling cultural guilt onto people for crimes like slavery, we have to punish all the involved guilty parties, not just the white ones. Which is why the “arab slave trade” arguement exists: It’s a justified desire to see all parties involved in the crime punished, instead of singling out one group of people because of skin-color.

Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Abagond correctly applies Judeo-Christian morality. But Dutch tort law would allow whites to demand reparations from arabs for the reparations paid to blacks (“onrechtmatige daad”, “hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheid”).

Sorry you white-hating racist, but the issue is how the non-white/leftist coalition applies the standards only to whites. The argument isn’t “others do it to” the proper and true argument is “others do it to but only whites get the blame and holding whites to a standard you don’t hold anybody else to is pure hate, pure racism.” You see? Anti-racism is a racist code word for anti-white.

P.S – If we’re so racist just get the hell away from us. You keep whining about how bad you’re treated but you never leave. You’re a parasite who lives off his betters, your income is at least 5 times what it would be if you lived on your own. If you were really our equals in ability you wouldn’t hesitate to go, to set up your own society, even within the U.S., where “white racism” wouldn’t hold you down. I mean, if the things you say are true why would anyone in their right mind would stay and pay to suffer them. They’re not true, they’re the opposite of truth, and that’s why you cling to our legs like a two year old child. “Civil Rights” and “White privilege” and all that other BS are just the plausibly deniable excuses to keep your fingers in white wallets because you know you couldn’t do nearly as well on your own.

Man your stupid. I never tried to condone or sugarcoat the Transatlantic slave trade. I only said that the Arab slavetrade of Black Africans is still happening extensivly to this date in Saudi arabia, Yemen Sudan Mauretania and no one really cares…. it seems partly because it doesnt really fit the whole ” only the evil white man can be racist” thingy you guys jerk of to…. You have no idea how many times you get the ” its white propaganda” answer when you call someone out people denying arab racism/slavery black Africans….

What guys like Macon don’t understand is that if we’re going to be shoveling cultural guilt onto people for crimes like slavery, we have to punish all the involved guilty parties, not just the white ones.

I think that you misunderstand the objections to the use of the Arab Slave trader Argument.

Let’s take you example: So a white guy, a black guy, and an arab guy assault a black guy. OK So let’s say that the Black assaulter runs really fast and evades arrest. And let’s also say that the Arab assaulter is well connected and manages to get released with just a warning. Does the fact that the other two guys beat the rap make the white guy any less guilty of assault?

The problem is that sometimes, when Black people are talking to White people about their own part in the assault, instead of admitting to the injustice of it, will often instead point out that the real injustice is that the other two guys got away and that’s what we should really be talking about!!!!

Thank you for your constructive criticism! I guess that was the only argument you could find against my text 😛 english is not my native language so unfortunatly I will make some spelling errors now and then, try not to get an ulcer 😛 Yup but the point is that the transatlantic at worst sugarcoated while the transsaharan one is denied sickenly to the point that so few even know that it is still happening and has kept on happening 1600 years at least.

“Barchan
Yup but the point is that the transatlantic at worst sugarcoated while the transsaharan one is denied sickenly to the point that so few even know that it is still happening and has kept on happening 1600 years at least.”

Linda says,

I don’t think anyone is denying that a slavery is currently happening in different countries in Africa and Middle East.

What the main point of the post is: the denial and how white society downplays (marginalizes) the transatlantic slave trade and the prosperity and benefits they gained from it and the lengths and evil done in order to maintain it.

There is a VAST difference in the effects and outcome of “intra-slavery” in Africa/middle east from the “trans-Atlantic” slavery and to compare the 2 does an injustice to both!

This is not a case of “everyone did it, still does it” — this is a case of how a dominant white society marginalizes/ likes to diminish their ancestors Part in the tragedy and attempts to not want to take ownership of this lovely part of history — but they (like the rest of us in the so-called 1st world countries) are enjoying the rewards created by the trans-atlantic slave trade.

The world was forever Changed due to the trans-atlantic slave trade and the biggest beneficiaries and Rewards went to white Europeans — not the Arabs and the Africans.

By the time they (arabs/africans) realized their mistake, their partners in crime (the Europeans) double-crossed them and was able to outgun them and started invading / occupying their lands (and Africa is still dealing today with the effects of this “partnership gone wrong”)

Slave labour built US of America into the rich country that is/was — it “shaped” the views of the country and it’s society –just like every other country that had African slave labour….this is the legacy that we all have to deal with until today (unfortunately)

The America’s (north and south) were not the only beneficiaries.

the trans-atlantic slave trade actually changed the world. Colonialism and Imperialism were born and maintained due to the financial prosperity gained from trans-atlantic slavery … without it, Britian would not have gotten rich and would not have been able to dominate the rest of the world for as long as it did.

The trans-atlantic slave trade should Always stand by itself because of the Vastness and abject Evil that surrounded and maintained it — It changed Human history (not just the lives of the enslaved Africans)

Reply to Linda. The arab enslavement of black africans was “Intra slavery” ??? You cannot be serious? All the fucking slave-grabbing JIHAD INCURSIONS into Africa were just some nice calm cultural exchange between so called “People of color” then ??? The fact that slavery started again in Sudan after the brits left(in 1980) because no one was there to hold back the islamist arabs that continued doing what they always did with the “kaffirs/Abds”?…Slaves died at the same extent when being forced to march across the whole fucking Sahara desert towards the slave markets in North Africa or the middle eas, as when they faced horrible conditions abord the european slave ships… “By the time the Arabs realized their mistake” it is hard to take you seriously when you have an idelized view of the arab slavery like that. Yemen made slavery illigal in 1963 for christ sake!! You want to see some nice Saudi Arabian family pictures fro FIFTIES with their Black slaves in the cornors??Mauretania made it formally illegal in 1973. The genocide of black Sudan by arabs?. The list goes on and on. There is nearly zero regrets in the arab world for their enslavement of Black Africans, zero regrets partly because it is never talked about and the few research on the economic effects it has had on North Africa and the middle east. The word Abd(slave) is commonly used for Black Africans and people just look completly indiffrent when you object to them using that term. Slave labour builds Saudi Arabia, Dubai Lebanon Syria to this today but it really isnt that bad when the slaveowners are “people of color” right? And no the world did not “change” when the transatlantic slavetrade began, it was “just” a second horrible step in the exploitation of Africa by non africans, made particulary easy thanks to the extreamly destabilizing effects the countless Jihad incursions against the ” dirty kaffir kingdoms” the arabs were doing in Africa.
I am not in anyway trying to sugarcoat the long lasting effects the transatlantic slave trade has had! I just want to make people realize that just because the Middle East arent as rich in this time from their exploitation of Africa didnt make it any less worse which you seem to think.

Ok im sorry for being a bit fiery with this topic but this denial/sugarcoating of how arabs view black africans is something I have grown up near and how it is all perfect harmony in the “people of color world” crap, and I have several bad expiriences with this here in Sweden from arabs and their views on literally anyone non arab.. And I meant to write that there is “idyllic”family pictures with arabs families in mostly saudiarabian households from s late as the fifties/sixties with their black slaves suffering in the background.

“Barchan
Reply to Linda. The arab enslavement of black africans was “Intra slavery” ??? You cannot be serious? All the fucking slave-grabbing JIHAD INCURSIONS into Africa were just some nice calm cultural exchange between so called “People of color” then ???”

Linda,

Yes –the word is “Intra” because it’s happening on the African continent by African people. The Arabs in Sudan are still African but since Saudi Arabia is technically not connected to Africa — we can call it international or regional if it makes you feel better.

Like I said to you and I repeat — each deserves to be spoken about and remembered on it’s own merit without being intertwined.

You shouldn’t have to speak about African slavery without diminishing the TransAtltantic slave trade — both Evils stand by themselves and it’s neither should be compared.

“Barchan
By the time the Arabs realized their mistake” it is hard to take you seriously when you have an idelized view of the arab slavery like that. Yemen made slavery illigal in 1963 for christ sake!! ”

Linda says,

Do me a favor and don’t interpret for me — my English is pretty clear and no where in my post do I “Idolize” the Arabs….history is what it is and yeah, I’m sure the Africans/Arabs realized they made a bad “business” deal with the Europeans…they did indeed suffer for it.

It’s nice that you feel “fired” up but let’s not get things twisted — most of us black/brown people of the diaspora on this blog aren’t excusing the Africans or Arabs …what we are discussing is how “white” society likes to excuse their European ancestors and try to play the blame game and downplay the effects and implications of the TransAtlantic slave trade

Slavery is not new — the Europeans enslaved other Europeans, just like how slavery was not new to Africa—but the transAtlantic slave trade took on a significance and life all on its own because of the International Impact it had.

You talking about and trying to compare the the African slave trade to the TransAtlantic slave trade is like apples to oranges, even though the TransAtlantic slave trade originated because of slavery in Africa.

you seem to have a good handle on the modern day African slavery that most of us of the diaspora don’t get a chance to hear about or see…

I would be most interested in hearing more about it, would you consider doing a guest post about it if Abagond is interested?

“The word intra, because it was happening on the African continent by african peoples” No this is not correct. This is what i meant about Jihad Incursions into Africa FROM the middle east. Simply put, an invading force from another continent (The middle east which is counted into Asia). The first and second Jihads were concentraded from the middle east and was aimed at Africa and Europe. In Europe it managed to concquer the Balkans and large parts of Spain. In Africa it spread across North Africa and later on the western and northern coasts. The things thats similar with the transatlantic slavery is that it was on a whole very race based with an similar hazardous transportation(cramped inhumane cargospaces on the slave ships from western Africa towards America- long hazardus march in chains over the Sahara desert towards the huge slavemarkets in Kairo or even further into the middle east).and yeah, to this date theese brutal pieces of history have shaped white westernes and arabs view of Black Africans. Huh black/brown people? Weird term I say. What i have learned is that there seems to be so few who is aware of the racism in the arab world. The main reason for this is when the north african arab majority countries has now later on tried to build relations with the southern Black African majority countries, they have managed to point exclusivly towards europe and its 400 years of african exploitation and slyly hidden their even longer history of exploitation of Africa (not at all saying what is worse or so but simply that theyve managed to hide such a long history of racism) huh write here :)? Dont think my english is good enough for them to bear with me x) I notice all my errors later on now when I read my old comments . Well Since I know a bit arabic it has been a shocking realization of what a lot of arabs people say. For instance you can check ANY syrian pro Assad page and find Extreamly racist comments about Obama. When they want to a.ttack the “whore americans” they have the wordgame joke “Al abed al-aswad fi al-beit al-abiyad” which I can roughly translate to “The black slave in the white house”. Racist rhymes and jokes like that is common among palistinians(and most arabsk) aswell when they get into their hate america rants like how pathetic they are (white americans) “they now let their slaves rule them” shittalk that really makes me sick. Or that they(white americans) tries to trick them(arabs) by letting “slaves” (black americans) unto high positions of power in USA ( Obama, Colin Powell Condolezza Rice) to make them underestimate them (I really wish I was making this shit up).

I forgot the whole deal with Kofi Annan and his UN pleads that people needs to strife towardss peace in syria. The rebels and military needs to stop killing and so on and he was dismissed in extreamly racist ways on arabic news channels and on facebook groups. … Im really tired of the way to mny black americans have the whole people of color-white people view on arab racism(not accusing anyone on abagond anymore now though!). There was for instance a youtube video on an Ethiopian maid being abused and beaten and driven to suiccide by arab men in lebanon and so many tumblr black american blogs were like ” oh how pity we people of color do that to each other” ” oh white people have damaged us we are fighting each oher now” very annying world view to me…..and btw Linda I dont think we really disagree on much at all, we both just despise racism in any form and im sorry for my angrier tone before! 🙂

This thread is not about Arab racism or the Arab slave trade. It is about how the Arab slave trade is used to play down or excuse the Western slave trade. White Americans use the Arab slave trade as squid ink to cover their own evil with an “Everyone does it” argument.

To separate the two issues I will do a post on the Arab slave trade, just as I did one on the Transatlantic trade. If you want to point me to any good books or online sources that would be appreciated.

Yup I got that! , Murray Gordon written a really good book called “Slavery in the Arab world” that covers the whole slavery era to date and todays view. Wiji Bohme Shomary has a lot of great texts about her life growing up as dark-skinned in the middle east and she has researched the arab slavery aswell but her articles are mostly in arabic or swedish though…

I havent read it but reading the description does make me want to order it xD. It seems the whole complexity with islams relation with slavery is discussed in it. Which I find very interresting, the whole “no muslim can enslave another muslim”ideas and the very good and humanistic message Islam has and that “everyone is worth as much before God”. …. AS LONG as your a muslim and not a unfaithful”kaffir” of any other religion, then its not that bad to enslave someone right?… Sigh

“Barchan
btw Linda I dont think we really disagree on much at all, we both just despise racism in any form and im sorry for my angrier tone before!”

Linda says,

No problem, Barchan, I like your passion…

you have brought some interesting information to the table and I look forward to reading Abagonds post about this topic.

I don’t know much about the subject but I’ve also lived in Europe. I went to university in Germany and I got to meet many different kinds of people.

I can honestly tell you I came away with a love/hate relationship with Spaniards and Italiens, and I did get a small glimpse into the muslim world via my Turkish friends.

As for how Arabs feel about Africans/black people — I can honestly say, I walked away not knowing how to feel. I had different experiences that I would say gave me a small insight but not enough to say “I understand these people”

Because there were so few of us coloured/non-white students living in the town I was in, we all sort of stuck together, so Syrians, Saudi’s, hung with Egyptian, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Sudan, etc. even Eritrea hung with Ethiopians (this was the 80’s mind you) — what I learned:

–some of northern Africans called themselves ‘white” even though they were darker than me,
–the Africans did not consider black Americans or any other black from the diaspora to be “Africans”,
–I was called a “unpure” by a few of the central & Southwest Africans because I am mixed-race and they questioned my right to call myself “black”
–Most of the Arabs/Africans spoke at least 3-4 languages minimum (their own, Arabic, and English), majority spoke French and was learning German like I was.
–even if there were disagreements along nationality/ethnic lines–everyone came together if one person was being insulted or threatened by the Europeans (we had a few frisky Italien, Danish and Finnish students who liked to start trouble when drunk)
–as a woman, I would never voluntarily marry or live in an Arabic/muslim country — I like my freedom. ( I had heard stories of Jamaican women who went to work in Saudi Arabia, had their passports taken, and were treated like slaves and beaten. They had to escape to Jamaican embassy and beg for safety)

from this group was the first time I did see the Arab arrogance towards darker-skinned people and I realized there was dislike for some of the Arabs from the African students but I’ll be honest, I never associated it with any historical past or Arab slavery….so you bringing this subject up actually shines a light on this topic.

Well to be honest when are arabs ever seen as whites (by white people) in any other way than the racial classification in the US? Still otherd into the non-european category by most I would believe. Whites and Arabs have had historical similarities in race relations with other people (mainly Black Africans) though

Yep. Very good examples and as ive said before the most powerful man in the world Barack Obama has been called “Al abed al-aswad fi al-beit al-abiyad”. Or in english “The black slave in the white house” by Syrians and Lebanese (but this racist joke is common throughout the middle east. similar to the contempt racists can have of him in the US. The arab nationalism you write about is very interesting. One similarity ive noticed is the growing fear of each other between white europeans and arabs. The white europeans is starting to fear the growing Islamic faith in Europe and that it brings older gender roles (separate swimming hours in water parks , that has started in immigrant heavy areas is one example, growing numbers of mosques) and the whole war on terror thing Bush stirred up which points suspision towards arabs( in racist ways). While many Arabs feel that European influence is undermining their traditional values (no matter how oppressive they can be towards women and non heteros people) and that they are the victims of aggressive cultural imperialism from the West. Both sides has points but we are heading in a dangerous direction that can escalate REALLY badly if things get out of hand

Bulanik@ Linda
I shared a few of your experiences in Germany.
Omg, just harsh and straight out like that. I didn’t like it. It was a learning curve. You know, there was no ‘explaining’ that they’d accept. Just rigid.

Linda says,

Learning curve is the word! Reality check in an inverse way and a little shocking to hear certain things because I was hearing it for the 1st time.

I was also called a “mutt” and so were the few black American students who were there. They were more perplexed than I was because to them, I “was” a mutt for true but they (black Americans) represented what “real” black people looked like –

well, not according to our fellow African students, who also placed them in the same category as me and told us blacks of the diaspora were a “lost” people who were not African.

Mind you, these things were not said in order to hurt us or put us down – these statements came about in discussions that we would have about religion, race, and other current events of the time in Africa and the Middle east….as you said, Rigid –their ethnicity and ancestral name meant a lot to them and was not a fluid thing — it defined who they were.

Seeing the world through their eyes was an eye-opener. The whole “one drop” rule and “Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud” did not resonate with them – they thought it was a joke

As much as I think Kola Boof is “touched”, many of the African students I met thought along the same lines as she does. Her view on Soledad O’Brien and her “who is Black in America” show:

“A White Woman (Soledad O’Brien) is given the power to DICTATE to Blacks what “blackness” is….she of an Irish name, white skin & everything but the burden.

She is to define an entire race of people from AFRICA based on the 1 drop rule invented by the KKK and we’re supposed to listen to her and not our own continent. It’s so typically arrogant and AMERICAN RACIST.

I have a few drops of TURKISH blood–why can’t I do a “White In America’ tv. special. Explain that
____________________ ______________
Barack Obama just as his Kenyan family taught him is “Half-Caste African Luo” …..he is African, but he is not Black. The other Africans on this thread have told you the same thing. Black is a Color that symbolizes African people—it’s not off white or cream yellow. We don’t accept “kinda black” or “black at certain times of the year” as Black.”

I will post her entire Rant in on the open thread, it’s long and I don’t want to derail this post too much.

Bulanik, I am going to post Kola’s rant on Abagonds “Kola Boof” post instead…better fit rather than clogging up the open thread — it’s long and has profanity — she was very passionate :-), so it will go into moderation

“Barchan
Well to be honest when are arabs ever seen as whites (by white people) in any other way than the racial classification in the US? Still otherd into the non-european category by most I would believe. Whites and Arabs have had historical similarities in race relations with other people (mainly Black Africans) though”

Linda says,

I’ve always thought of the northern Africans, like the Egyptians, as a confused set of people– to me, they represent colourism at it’s finest — they despise dark skin and praise light skin. I am not saying they are black — they are not, they fall into that “brown/other” category just like Hispanics/Latinos in America.

They (Egyptians) are a mixed-race people (and just like most Hispanics/Latinos)refuse to acknowledge their African ancestry even though a good portion of the population have black African mDNA — the Egyptians I knew were the main ones calling themselves “white” —

(is this African denial taught in their schools?) Is it really the Arab influence that made them this way or was it the European/British influence or the many invasions by their southern black African neighbors that made the Egyptians feel this way?

I stumbled across an Egyptian-American writer who touched on this subject concerning how the Egyptians treat the Sudanese refugees (one commenter mentioned how Indonesion and Asian “guest” workers are treated):

Living in America or Europe must be a rude awakening for most of them (Arabs/Muslims) — they are in the same boat as “black” people and other minorities and the “white” colour designation they enjoy at home has no real currency outside of African/Middle East.

Their treatment in Europe is not new — it’s just seems like it’s getting worse because the Europeans are being more loud and vocal than ever before.

When thinking about USA and arabs and how they are seen or were seen before, he is a tip: Paul Anka. Yeap. Lebanese roots. The guy who sang Diana, Put your head on my shoulder, My Hometown, Crazy Love and You are my destiny. So at least in the 50’s being an arab was no obstacle.

I think we have to remember that muslim arabs propably are seen more alien in USA than christian arabs. When ever we talk about arabs, usually we assume they are muslims, but that is not the case, not even when discussing about the palestinians. There is a quite significant christian minority of palestinians too. And in USA, being a christian (what ever that might be) is traditionally seen as a positive sign.

So if you are an arab, whos complexion is light, and you are an christian, I would imagine that people around you do not recognize your ethnicity, specially if you have changed your name, like it was a custom in the early part of 1900’s up untill 1960’s. So, if you are Jack Arafat instead of Jasser Arafat and go to church every sunday and live a life just like everyone elese around you, most people would not even notice your ancestory.

As for the arab racism, I can not guess what are its origins. I do know that many of them are pretty racist towards blacks, unless in the context of Umma, supposed islamic unity etc. I have no idea how sincere the non-racism is even in islam. If we look at the conflict in Sudan, it was supposedly about the religion and resources, islamic north vs animistic and christian south, but for some reason the north was represented by arab volunteer shock troops etc. and the southern rebels were almost to a man black. So the supposedly religious lines in that conflict followed pretty much the racial and ethnical division too. Yes, there are and were very dark sudanese muslims, but their idea of the southern sudanese people (who were even darker) was pretty much that those were un educated african savages etc.

“The American is primitive in his artistic taste, both in what he enjoys as art and in his own artistic works. “Jazz” music is his music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy on the one hand and to excite bestial tendencies on the other. The American’s intoxication in “jazz” music does not reach its full completion until the music is accompanied by singing that is just as coarse and obnoxious as the music itself. Meanwhile, the noise of the instruments and the voices mounts, and it rings in the ears to an unbearable degree… The agitation of the multitude[2] increases, and the voices of approval mount, and their palms ring out in vehement, continuous applause that all but deafens the ears” Sayyid Qutb

No, its near perverse to try to tie in some ideological link with Sayyid “In the Shadow of the Koran” Qutb and the fight against white racism.

“It was as if his own experience of racism as a black man (which was what he appeared to be to ‘proper’, non-Arab whites under the One Drop Rule of that era) was the spark and the explanation behind anti-American elements in parts of the Middle East”

What a pseudo intellectual manipulation of what this guy, and his followers really are about. And a total misrepresentation of their real fundamentalist positions. The visceral truth about what he has said and is , is directly in the racist statement I brought in , taylor made for exactly all I need to know about this sob to know why I despise him and his followers…who really are much more interested in if you are “faithful” or an “infidel” than if you are a white racist.

It also really hits home with a huge authority, exactly the principle Ive been talking about , how, this persons ideology in his fundamental religion, as well as fundamental Christianity or Orthadox Judeism does not accept the real genius and contribution of the Afro Diasporic expresion and its great value.He might as well be Henry Ford, with his referances to bestial tendancies and primitive inclinations . Ha, personaly I dont care if someone on here intellectualy wants to identify with this person’s views and find some kind of connection for themselves with this person and his followers , but, for me, his total disrespect for one of black America’s greatest contributions to the world, and his uptightness with “lavicious behaviour” of women and dancing and music, is all I need to know that these people are my ideological enemies. I love Wesern decadance, my organisation is mixing a monster CD now with plenty of bestial tendancies and primitive inclinations and everyday its got warmth and sun where I live, and I can see women in the most naturaly provocative nudity, or dancing incredible Afro Diasporic dances, with aggresive pelvic thrusts , I am a tremendously greatful individual , for the profound insight and well being it brings to my life.

“The Arab Trader” argument? Yes, as a person here, who has made it clear that I think the slave trade in the Americas was worse than the Arab slave trade,I totaly also feel I can talk with quite frankness about how I feel about the Arab slave trade and how it affected the black Africans who suffered from it…

Yes, I have been a strong supporter of how the legacy of slavery to the Americas affects us all into theh present, and, yes, I have tried with all my might to bring attention on how Brazil is even affected as much as anywhere because of the legacy of the slave trade to the Americas…

so, Im amazed that now , I have been carded on this blog with the Arab Slave trade argument, as well as , no matter if its a discusion about Fake Indians and my son’s right to express himself, or, about Africa 13,000 years, or pointing out Arab racism on an Arab thread, I get pointed out as the “white” “racist” “American” “male” “oppresor”?

Does this mean that in the Arab Trader argument, if I am white, American, male, then that automticly disqualifies me?

“B. R.
Does this mean that in the Arab Trader argument, if I am white, American, male, then that automticly disqualifies me?”

Linda says,

BR, everyone here has butted heads on one subject or another, that’s what makes these discussions lively because there is always a “ying” to someone elses “yang” …try not to take it personally…just shake it off.

The information you brought in on Sayyid Qutb brings balance — which is necessary in these discussions because humans are not one-dimensional creatures —

you just showed that it’s possible to be prejudiced/racist against one group of people while at the same time experiencing prejudiced/racist yourself at the same time from another group (there is always a hierarchy).

You’ve brought into focus another aspect of this topic — which is religion. Was Sayyid Qutb dislike of black Americans religious driven or was it culturally driven because he was Egyptian and they were/are prejudiced against black Africans?

Regardless, he still felt the sting of being marginalized by white Americans for not being what they call “white”…it would be nice to think that he would have learned from this experience and felt compelled to empathize with black Americans

but as you just pointed out, he just internalized his feelings and expressed it as “hatred” of the westerners/infidels while keeping his cultural/racial prejudices intact.

I believe it’s good to show inverse relationships/patterns of behavior in these types of discussions because it shows how the world doesn’t roll on just one set of rules and that people do grow–whether in a good way or bad way — look at Malcolm X – he wasn’t the same man in the end — but what he achieved was profound — it would have been interesting to see where his new found enlightenment would have taken him.

So sorry the truth hurts, Bulanik. Its you who try to casualy bring in Qubt and imply his experiances with racism in America could be some link with some philisophical context in the groups that followed him…bs…you can casualy try to slip his name past readers here who dont know what he stands for , but I do, and people deserve to know that aspect…not your hidden agenda…who do you think you are fooling? The people inspired by his beleifs assasinated one of Egypts great polititions, Anwar Sadat..did you hear what i said? “followed his beleifs”…its his fundamentalist crud that inspires these scum bags to interpret Islam in their way and they kill more people of Islam than the West ever could.

Oh yeah, try your psyche and “its not about you, how did this get to frivilous drumming…” keep showing you dont get it, Bulanik, you never did, Im not surprised you cant tie in how Qubt’s racist remarks about jazz also reflect the more insidious aspects of his fundamentalism. You dont really perceive what jazz is in relationship to its value and its Afro diasporic roots, and how those roots are dismissed, buried, and destroyed BY ALL FUNDIMENTAL RELIGIONS LIKE iSLAM CHRISTIANITY AND JUDISM…

Interesting how you really try to put on me like I am racist against Arabs or Islam when I specificly state its the fundamentalism in all these religions…I SPECIFICLY STATED THAT , LADY…so dont run bs. And hades yes , Im going to point out how you have tried to put me in a trick bag because you cant handle being challenged.About me? Ive been pulling back commentary, based on your bs…yet you think you can slip by some manipulative statement about Qubt , someone I do know about, and Im not going to bring in the truth about his sob fundalmentalism?

Its exactly because I do say the Atlantic slave trade is worse than the Arab slave trade and because I have supported and added to the discusion of how the legacy of slavery still affects society today, that I know I can come in and point out the racism of Qubt , in the face of your diceptive statement about him…and as usual, you try to make me out to be racist or anti Arab.

Linda, just look at Qubt’s remark. Its not even that he doesnt like jazz. “Bestial”? “primitive inclinations”? You may have to think in your head if it is religious or what, I dont, its plain as day exactly where he is coming from…its the same as Henry Ford, and all the other fundamentalist racists that when it gets down to the truth, its that they dont want to recognise some incredible gifts and contributions and what is really the humanity of the exact people who were ripped out of their lives in Africa for slavery in both the Atlantic and Arab slave trade

All I did was bring in some truth…the readers on here can make up their own minds

Bulanik, you have to be kidding me , right? You cant be serious, like I have to step into some kind of grilling by you, on your terms..a person who has slandered me, painting me as a stalker, said I have belittled her as a black woman, called me racist white american oppressor in arguments that have nothing to do with that.

I tell you what, you tell me where i have belittled you as a black woman and Ill answer every point up there…I mean you have incredible recall on posts on this blog, you must have this incident deeply entrenched in your mind exactly where it is , since you claim it traumatised you so much…

As it is, Ill certainly point out some of the most ridiculous questions. Nazi Germany and how they treated jazz? I mean you cant be for real about this, are you? The anwer is so obvious and I included it all ready as I have answered all ready all your questions. I implicated everyone who is fundamentalist and who would make racist statements that would relagate high leval Afro diasporic culture to “bestial sexual promisuous inclinations”….EVERYONE… I said that, do you get it now!! I included Islam, Chritianity, Judism, you think I would give the Nazi’s a pass? You are weird…are all Arabs fundimentalist? Do these fundamentalists represent all Islam? Ask all the people who practice Islam who are slaughtered by these fundamentalists, inspired by Qutb and his ramblings…do you care about them? A bunch were slaughtered this week in Pakistan…by the Taliban, followers of Sayyid’s fundamental philosophies

Al Queeda out to kill black musicians? Really , these questions are extremly foolish. You are the one who actualy begged the question if these groups who were inspired by Sayyid could have some philosophical hook up with anti racism in the USA that Quibt spoke about…in certainly much less detail than American mores…do I think you are a beleiver in Al Queeda’s principles? No, I think you will hide the truth of the whole story for your own agenda that you are on, seething in your own resentments

Do you actualy think his racist remarks against black American culture, only aply to American culture? Do you think his fundamentalist beleifs would give Brazil, and all its unbeleivable sensual culture and Afro Brazilian dances and bestial beats a pass? or the Mambo in Cuba? Or is his fundalmentalism cutting much deeper and seriusly implicating all Afro diasporic cultures that have these beats and dances as the foundation of their cultures…and , do you think Al Queada, or the Taliban, with their restrictions on music , are , in their fundamentalist translation of Islam, giving these cultures a pass? Actualy, you dont have to answer, the answer is already obvious…

I mean seriously, all you have to do is look at the truth in his statements I brought in…I dont have to say anything, its all there. And that is the basis of a strict fundamentalist Islamic aproach to black Afro ( emphasize black African) diasporic culture that relates to beats with dances that are a part of that culture….if you are classifying him “black” and Arabs as “black”, then this group of people who took slaves and the religion that came with the Arabs ( yes, Islam is not representative of all Arabs, but it is the religion that came with the Arabs), then its just an example that a group of “black people” who arent Afro diasporic with Afro diasporic culture, can also enslave and bury other “black peoples ” culture….

Who gets lost in this whole debate, agian, and Ive said it over and over, is the cultural humanity , expresion and the value of the gifts and concepts of the ancient Africans, before Arab or Western enslavement and religious domination

I can only let my black American colleagues read his words and make up their own minds….I never have had an atitude on this blog that “black Americans ought to blah blah…” I can only tell you this, as a jazz musican and a person who works intimitly with Afro diasporic dances and beats, I know only too well what he means, and I have heard it before in great amounts by white racists, white fundamentalists Christians, Nazi’s, bans on sax playing inituaily by Fidel, who gave it up realising how stupid it was, racist Brazilians about Afro Brazilian culture,and all these people are my ideological enemies, and I fight them everyday just living my lifestyle to the fullest

You think because I used “my black American colleagues”, that it is some kind of “you arnt with them , I am”…blahhhhhhaaaaa

I say black American colleagues in the sence that since we are American citizens , that makes us colleagues…colleagues means I can site this that we have in common and not make Truthbetold obligated to think she has to speak with me….its exactly saying the opisite of what you are implying…Im not asking to be accepted because “I am down”.

And you think because I mention jazz, that is going to be some kind of badge of acceptance in the black American community?

hahahahahahahahahahah this is killing me!!!!!!!!!

Black Americans dont automaticly love and accept and know about jazz…..you think black Americans are saying “he digs jazz , he must be cool…” Jazz is black American culture, it doesnt represent black Americans, it doesnt oblligate black Americans to embrace and play jazz on their sound systems…in fact most dont….but it is one of the highest expresions of black American culture and is part of black American history and Afro diasporic culture…its is there for any black American to discover if they want to and receive the treasures it represents , and the enormous pride they deserve to feel as it is one of black Americas highest expresions and gifts to the world

Oh, because I dated many many black woman and married two, Im thinking I get a pass on here? I thought you were reading this blog?

Havent you seen how integrated couples have been raked over the coals here? Havent you been paying attention? There is no badge of acceptance to come in here and say “im a white guy dating and married to black women….arnt I cool and accepted?”

The truth is , I am who I am, with my experiances, that nobody can take away from me, and, I am proud to stand up for my experiances and be exactly who I am…If I anounce on here I am from an integrated mairadge raising a bi racial son, its to stand up to anyone who would say that there is something funny about it.If I stand up for Afro diasporic culture and can bring insights to the table, especialy to show its great value and genius, its because it is a fact I have been a involved with these cultures ( I always was into jazz, African, Brazilian and Cuban drum/dance cultures) since before 8 years old, and, my passion , that is and always was my life and porfesion , has given me incredible insights into the value of the Afro diasporic culture..

Fankly, I find your acuasations extremly weak…even the semantical mixup of “islamist” . my gosh,you are using that as your basis to incriminate me?

Im calling you out for dropping a turd on this thread , by bringing in Sayyid and implying that his followers were somehow tied into a philisophical bond against white racism in America, Im telling you that , in light of his blatent racist statement, your assumtion stinks

“BR@
Linda, just look at Qubt’s remark. Its not even that he doesnt like jazz. “Bestial”? “primitive inclinations”? You may have to think in your head if it is religious or what, I dont, its plain as day exactly where he is coming from”

Linda says,

BR, in my own way, I was attempting to forestall the upcoming falling out between you and Bulanik…but Oh well, I knew it wouldn’t really work 🙂

So, I will carry on.

I already stated that I believe the north Africans are prejudiced/racist against the black Africans or darker skin. They seem to share the same colourism (reverse “US one drop rule”) as/was in the Caribbean/ Mexico/ Central/ South America. Living in Brazil, you know the score:

There seems to be this common thread where light-skin is preferred, where “white daddy” was beloved and “black mama” was kept in the closet and the “brown” children were tolerated by white society– educated to be “psuedo white people” loving everything European, given certain privileges and power, and taught to hate/despise/forget/deny their black African heritage. (whereas, in the US, these brown children were completely locked out of white society by the “one drop rule”)

But in the Caribbean / Latin America — these prejudices/racism was introduced courtesy of the Europeans; whereas, the North Africans seemed to already marginalize their black/ dark skin neighbors.

— my question is — was this racial attitude introduced by the first Islamic Arab Jihad wave into Africa as Barchan mentioned or was it introduced by the Europeans during occupation/ colonization?

Because no doubt, in western countries, Arabs and North Africans (like the Egyptians) are not considered “black” nor or they considered “white” — they are “other” and face similar racial marginalization just like black people do in Europe and America.

That being said, the existing racial prejudice the north Africans have, coupled with extreme Islamic beliefs, does seem to be a combination that belittles and seeks to destroy/dismantle whatever black African country/ culture they occupy…look at what’s happening in Mali –it breaks my heart.

The Tuaregs (north African berbers) sought to take back their ancestral lands from the “black African” oppressors and thanks to US interference in Libya, the Tuaregs got the opportunity and the firepower.

Quaddafi was a bad man indeed but he managed to stand between old adversaries, keep a certain order and sought alliances with his black African neighbors. The Tuaregs brought in their Arab / Islamic jihadist partners to enter into a fight they had no business being a part of and as usual — the Tuaregs got double-crossed because the Islamists promptly turned around and stabbed them in the back and kicked out the Tuaregs.

The Islamic jihadist took over Timbuktu and proceeded to destroy ancient African temples and artifacts out of contempt and intolerance (and big time Ignorance).

I understand the racial undertone that possibly drove the Tuaregs but the new Islamic jihadi fighters are Arabs from Middle East and Muslims from Pakistan/Afganistan so, would you say their contempt for African tombs/ history/ culture is racial or religious? because they seem to have no tolerance for any culture/ country they are in — look at what is happening in Nigeria and Pakistan.

“Bulanik
The Tuareg seem to have been marginalized by different groups over the years. Do you think they could be construed as oppressed as a result of this?
What do you think their entitlement should be in West African countries? I wonder whether we should even call it an entitlement since they are neither Arab or “black Africans”

Linda says,

As far as entitlements go, the Tuaregs are indigineous (originate) from west/ north Africa, so I feel they are entitled to fight and try to win back their ancestral lands and form a bordered country (something their forefathers fighting the French didn’t want to do)

Other ethnic groups in Africa have been fighting to re-establish their ancestral borders since the Europeans screwed them up — so the Tuaregs should try as well. My understanding is that they got screwed over by their Arab and black African neighbors during the fight for Independence from European colonialism

The Tuaregs are definitely marginalized as a group…it was done deliberately to weaken them — first by the French, then by the North and West Africa post-colonial countries (ex. Algeria, Niger).

I don’t really know the history very well but from what I’ve read, the Tuaregs seem to have the same problem as the indigineous natives of North/South America and Australia — they are treated as second-class citizens in their own ancestral lands ….as a people, they were not taken into consideration when these new “republics” were being formed.

Now, on the flipside, should I, feel sorry for them? (u know I like to play devils advocate 🙂

From what I’ve read, the Tuaregs controlled the Saharan Trade Routes pre-European invasion (colonialism) – they were responsible for bringing black African slaves north — so they had a huge hand in controlling the flow of slaves in Africa.

In a way, it could be said that “payback is a b’tch” because they’ve been fighting to regain their indepenance since 1962 in Mali and Niger.

Do the Tuaregs have a rightful claim?

My understanding is that the Tuaregs claim to be the descendents of the Songhay and have ancestral rights to re-establish the borders of the Songhai empire (I believe this is the “Azawad” they keep referring to) which the Songhai ruled after the Mali empire declined.

but PLEASE, Bulanik — anyone familiar with the history — correct my information or fill in the holes because I don’t know enough about this history — I shouldn’t even be commenting on it but I find this part of African history to be interesting — and to me, the Tuaregs are an interesting, complex people

“Bulanik,
But isn’t the vandalism targeting Muslim saints’ tombs? Aren’t they pulverizing valuable parts of the history of Islam in Africa?
(Also, if Islam was brought to Mali through aggression, then why would such mausoleums, etc., even exist?)”

Linda says,

I guess my point was that the Islamic jihadist have no respect for any culture – muslim or non-muslim…

As far as Timbuktu goes, from what I’ve read, it was the Tuaregs around 1000 AD (Tin Abutut, Maghsharan Tuaregs) who established it — pre-Arab invasion (please correct me if I’m wrong) — so this city is firmly African. I was incorrect by saying the Tuaregs are descendents of the Songhai — the Songhai are a seperate group that ruled Timbuktu after the Tuaregs.

It seems it was the Tuaregs, then Mali empire, then Songhai empire, then Dende empire, various groups, then the French, to present day Mali, with the Mande being the majority population.

But as for Timubktu being ransacked, they are destroying both black African and Arab/muslim history.

In the 11th century:

“The first constructions in Timbuktu were designed by African architects from Djenne (Soninké) and later on by Muslim architects from North Africa. Trade and knowledge were at their height. It was at this time that the King of Sosso invaded the empire of Ghana, thus causing the exodus of the scholars of Walata to Timbuktu.”

So, if I understand, the Temples/ artifacts are a mixture of black African and Arab/Muslim architecture. I don’t think all the credit should go to the Arab muslims — I would be very interested to know who taught/copied who —

what I find to also be a travesty is that many old manuscipts are still being held in French museums.

“Bulanik,
But, Linda, since you mention it, and you also mention Mali, I would appreciate if you’d outline the origins of Islam in west Africa and please specify the methods used.”

Linda says,

Now you know this is your specialty here…I’ve already exhausted myself just learning about the Tuaregs 🙂

but based on my readings, I believed it spread further west during the Mali empire (founded by ruling families of the declined Ghanian empire) and also during Songhai dynasty.

The Soninke (black Africans), the founders of the ancient Ghanian Empire (750-1240 CE) embraced Islam in the 1000’s after coming into contact with the Almoravids (Moroccan Berbers). The Moroccan Berbers converted to Islam in the 9th century (after contact with the Arabs) and became known as the Almoravids who invaded/converted the Sudanese in 10th century and also invaded Spain — known as the Moors.

After the decline of the Ghanian empire, some of it’s former rulers (keep in mind they were mostly black Africans) formed the Mali empire (most famous ruler was Mansa Musa, who built the University of Sankore in Timbuktu and famous temples). I believe the religion was spread even more west & east during the rule of the Songhai empire (by Askya Muhhamd I aka “Askia the Great” (from Solinke/Songhai ruling families)

Side note: There was alot of intermixing during this time – many of the Almoravids married into prominent Ghanian ruling families — this is primarily how the religion was spread during the Ghanian empires occupation by the Almoravids, as well as people converting becausing they were being over-taxed because they were non-muslims.

and vice-a-versa–many of the Ghanian people assimilated into the Almoravids – so “slavery” is not the only reason why north Africans carry black African genes.

I find this stuff so fascinatings — Africans have all the rights in the world to hold their heads up high and give the middle finger to the white Europeans whose ancestors were still primitive barbarians when these black African people were building empires.

The Almoravids got into Ghana by mostly invasion/ war but they also married into the ruling classes — my readings indicates that this is how the religion was primarily spread. The Almoravids invaded the Ghana Empire because it was one the richest empires at the time and the wanted a piece.

“Bulanik
You mention above that in Ghana the religion was spread by war and invasion mainly.”

Linda says,

No, that’s not what I meant. From my readings, in Ghana Empire, the religion was spread mainly through Marriage.

“Linda@ The Almoravids got into Ghana by mostly invasion/ war but they also married into the ruling classes — my readings indicates that this is how the religion was primarily spread.”

The Almoravids spent almost 10 years fighting to get in/take over Ghana empire through invasions because it was one of the richest regions at the time. If anything, they were more successful destabilizing Ghana from the inside — marrying into the rulng families, converting the ruling families to Islam, gaining power, having new laws enacted in accordance with Islam.

Once they were able to get in successfully with their army, their main goal was to rule the Empire — this goal was financially motivated. Spreading their religion was secondary.

I also read that many of the regular people –trademen, merchants, etc.. converted to Islam because the were being over-taxed because they were not muslims. The Soninke ruling class had already converted to Islam (and so did their servents) but the religion didn’t “spread” because of this…it seemed when they moved on to form Mali dynasty that the religion took on more traction.

I think just like in christianity there has been several different stages in islam. In its heyday during the islamic renessance muslim world was the most advanced. They had 1000 doctors working in a hospital in Bagdad which was free for all. They had post offices as far as in China, knew the basics of photography, were top class in mathematics, biology, geography etc. BUT the religion moved in to the center and that was that.

Same happened in the Ottoman empire. As soon as the religion began to difine and direct the development of society, unavoidable stagnation arrived. Same happened in the west with christianity, first during late 300’s and then during the middle ages etc.

If anyone has any illusions or missguided ideas about the nature of islam, just read the Koran. It is very clear on certain issues, such as how women are always under the will of men, without any exception, and how the infidel must be eliminated one way or the other. Just like christianity islam is a religion which has a basic consept of submission, surrender of ones own will to the God will, which is naturally explained by those who “know better”. Both are very political and also systems of power and control. That is the key for islam and christianity.

Islam was very militant and was spread into Africa by missionaires and military, just like christianity was spread into Europe before. The conversion was sometimes peaceful but usually forced. This meant destruction of local belief systems, killing off the local holy men and women as witches, destroying the native temples or holy places, images etc. Just like in the case of christianity. Similar tales of massacres, conquest etc.

I know it is fashionable today to see islam in a politically correct light and explain its history in a cleaned up way but the conquest of north Africa was just that: a conquest. It was not a huge wave of spontanic conversion or native movement, it was a conquest of the eastern arabic origin and the guide line was the command of Koran: the holy war to make the world muslim. The same kind of idea and ethos was behind the european crusades bit later: holy war and conquest, “saving” the world.

Naturally I assumed that people know how the christianity was brought to Europe, by conquest and holy war. Charlemagne for example killed tens of thousands of western slavs and germans with his crusades and those wars continued all to way up to the surrender of Lithuania in late 1300’s to the church. So it took some 400 years and hundreds of thousands of dead europeans before Europe was even nominally christian.

So perhaps I should clarify my stand on these religions. I see them pretty much the same. From my perspective there is no difference between them and also, they have the same God, so…

What I meant with the political correctness is that when we now live the time when islamophobia is running rampant in the west, and is used by many opportunistic politicians and extremist right wing nutters, there is a tendency on the other end of the spectrum try to see islam in more postive light than what it is. This is what I meant. And like this conversation here shows, it is very hard to discuss about islam without misunderstandings.

As for the conquest of Spain by the moors, it would be good to remember that the situation was never as clear cut as we today often think it was. El Cid, that great spanish national hero, for example, was on the pay roll of some muslim lords at one time or another, and he fought against the muslims and sometimes against the christians. So muslim conquest and the reconquista later were not black and white events, they were very confused, mixed, and very complex series of events spanning for centuries.

Bulanik, I will try to clarify my points (I don’t have much time now but I want to continue this discussion)

I have nothing against Islam in itself– only how it is practiced or rather manipulated in certain countries or groups with Agendas — this could be said of almost any religion. I also have a beef with different Christian groups and their version and interpretation of the “word”…but I digress

“Bulanik
@ Linda
It’s not yet clear to me what your PoV is on the subject under discussion.
The impression I have so far is that you believe Islam, over the centuries, was enforced and imposed by violence on unwilling Africans by paler invaders.
If I have got you wrong, excuse me in advance, and put me right”

Linda says,

Your impression is Not at all my POV– to be clear:

the Africans themselves helped to spread Islam and the spreading and teaching of the religion was done non-violently. it was the Berbers that kicked it off and spread it south and groups like the Sudanese helped to spread Islam west and South.

The religion first hit African shores in the northeast, brought by the Arabs/Eurasians, who initially came peacefully and established relationships with the local people — but then, as you know, a military invasion came after the death of the prophet Mohammed — this is the violence that most people speak of when talking about Arab invasion into north Africa (I’ve never heard of armies taking territory without bloodshed.)

I was trying to say that in the north West, the conversion to Islam on a larger scale began with the Almoravids, and gained more traction by spreading into the Ghanian empire.

This conversion was done peacefully because the majority of Ghanians themselves learned about Islam, accepted and converted willing — and when the Ghanian empire declined, the Ghanian people themselves spread Islam even further west, south, and east (Malian Empire, Songhay Empire)

But the conquest of the Ghanian region (geography-wise) was done through force- the Almoravids took control using violence — The Ghanian rulers were not willing partners in giving up their trade-routes and wealth.

Keep in mind that the Almoravids were Berbers, who were called “Warrior Monks” — they were well known and respected as tough military fighters and for being very religious, very pious and devout — their primary goal was to spread the teaching of Islam and they ruled/ took control of different regions/ countries by any means necessary– this is what they were known for — their military and fighting skills. (That’s why the Arabs in Spain reached out to them for help against the Christians)

Also, the Almoravid army (and Empire) had to maintain itelf, so their secondary objectives was financial — they had to have funding.

“Before the advent of the Almoravids in the first half of the eleventh century, the Sanhaja (Almoravids) had only played an ancillary role in the trade links between southern Morocco and Ghana and the western Sudan. They had been passive witnesses of the intense commercial exchanges taking place through their territory without gaining any profit from them. Control of the trade routes was in the hands of the Soninke state in Ghana, in the south, and of Zanata Berbers—a rival tribal group—in the north. The first Almoravid campaigns were aimed, therefore, at occupying the main commercial centers.”

So yes, the Almoravids wanted to rule the commercial routes that the Ghanians controlled — that’s why they invaded the Ghanian Empire–dinars were made from Gold that was brought from the south by the Ghanian traders.

Even though the Almoravids were considered to be “religious zealots” — they were also known for being tolerant of other religions (unlike the Almohads) and for not forcing the local populations to convert to Islam but the local populations had to follow their rules, which were based on islamic doctrine.

This blog is nonsense.There are no arab trader arguments or white invention arguments.This is pure fabrication by abagond.But,i suppose it serves the interests of anti-racists(the most intolerant and biggoted people alive)Regarding this thread.It certainly is important to mention the arabs,and more importantly,the jews involvement in the african slave trade.This does not mean whites are refusing to take responsibility,they are just pointing out that other ethnic groups share the responsibility.Everyone also seems to forget that blacks themselves enslaved their own people and sold them to traders.This is not shifting blame,it is a fact! Another fact which is also conveniently omitted is that whites worked to end the slave trade,despite jewish opposition.Again,this is not,as this blog would have us believe,because whites were trying to redeem themselves by doing something “good”,they did it because they truly believed it was wrong.In other words,whites are the not singular cause of all the “evil”(an exaggeration)or “oppression” of the world,although there are obviously many who want to believe this for whatever reason.

Again, we should pressurize Arabs and Jews to pay their share of reparations. Next to morality, there is common sense. It would be very stupid to only attack the people who more or less voluntariliy gave up slavery. Nobody would be so stupid to ever free his own slaves, if no good deed goes unpunished.

Also, Sandew Hira has interesting comparisons with the Jewish Holocaust.

I WILL make sure Arabs will pay Allen West, I WILL make sure Jews will pay Tony Martin. Arabs and Jews are threatened by Iranians in the Middle-East, and they are busy destroying each other.
As well, both cultures are more tolerant of abortion than of euthanasia, which will make their demography lopsided towards old. Israel has the additional problem of Ultra-Orthodox people who only study Talmud, and have large families.

[…] The Arab trader argument is my name for an argument white Americans often use to defend the evil they do in the world. It goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all… […]

[…] The Arab trader argument is my name for an argument white Americans often use to defend the evil they do in the world. It goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all… […]

[…] The Arab trader argument is my name for an argument white Americans often use to defend the evil they do in the world. It goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all… […]

When fools try that argument on me, I just tell them I am not from the country they are alluding to so why bring that up? I also tell them to stay on topic. The anger and frustration they exhibit is hilarious.

Mentioning Arab slave traders is not meant to excuse morally wrong actions, it’s meant to keep people intellectually honest who focus exclusively on white sins and act as if non-whites have a moral high ground, completely peaceful peoples who just happened to have their happy times interrupted by evil white racists.

If you call intellectual honesty deflecting from the subject at hand. If a person wants to truly show some level of intellectual honesty then they will simply acknowledge the wrongs of said individuals and move on. Not try to push the focus elsewhere. It is simply an argument among 2 year olds. “But he did it first…blah…”

Intellectual dishonesty is when you keep on harping on slavery when any reasonable white person will say “Yes it’s bad and was horrible, what more do you want?” And then keep on harping them and NEVER confront other peoples with legacies of slavery nor mind the modern slavery that happens today in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The reason the Arab slave trade is even brought up is because this happens so often in debate. Those who bring it up are not looking to excuse white slavery of blacks, they’re seeing if you’re just as principled against other slave trades as you are against white slavery.

,blockquote>Intellectual dishonesty is when you keep on harping on slavery when any reasonable white person will say “Yes it’s bad and was horrible, what more do you want?” And then keep on harping them and NEVER confront other peoples with legacies of slavery nor mind the modern slavery that happens today in Sub-Saharan Africa.”

Or in other words, you haven’t ever taken the time to look at all the past posts on this blog that address just that.

“Intellectual dishonesty is when you keep on harping on slavery when any reasonable white person will say “Yes it’s bad and was horrible, what more do you want?”—On the contrary, intellectual dishonest is the advocacy of a position known to be false, but that is not the case here (though other definitions may apply). The whole point of the post is for people who do not say “Yes it’s bad and was horrible, what more do you want?” but choose to use this to deflect from the point at hand. They never make it to “Yes it’s bad and was horrible, what more do you want?”

“And then keep on harping them and NEVER confront other peoples with legacies of slavery nor mind the modern slavery that happens today in Sub-Saharan Africa.”—Who says they don’t?

“The reason the Arab slave trade is even brought up is because this happens so often in debate. Those who bring it up are not looking to excuse white slavery of blacks, they’re seeing if you’re just as principled against other slave trades as you are against white slavery.”—And what proof do you have that this is the reason? You are now taking on the position of assuming you know what every person that uses that argument means. Reasonably you don’t, but for argument sake lets say you do. So they use this argument, but it is still deflection. They still are trying to point fingers at another instead of owning up to said wrong.

This does not mean that the others involved should be overlooked, but it does mean that it is a weak argument to try and make it acceptable by saying such and such did it first. Like I said…it is a child’s argument regardless of what party uses it.

“And you never are”—I never am what? If you are assuming something about me then you are aware that you have thus far engaged in intellectual dishonesty? I am confused on how you hope to lecture people on something you can not manage to not engage in yourself?

“I never am what?”- People like you are never as sanctimonious with other forms of slavery as you are with white slavery. I don’t know that for a fact with you, but I’d wager from the general tenor here that is the case given all the ‘white male this’ and ‘racism that’ going on.

“Who says they don’t?”- I say they don’t. Most slavery discussions are centered around white-black slavery, other forms are derided as ‘making excuses’.

“And what proof do you have that this is the reason?”- Some I’m sure really are making excuses for slavery, but for the people who make it past that, who say “Black slavery is bad and gone.”, the Arab Trader has its appeal to make those observing the debate aware that slavery has gone on long before and after the white man elected to stop it in his own countries, as these debates are often framed in terms of “LOOK WHAT WHITES DID!”.

After one debater has ceded that black slavery is bad, there’s no point in beating the horse further unless there’s some other motive at play other than the spirit of debate.

The cut and dried truth is, it is suposed to be used on whites who will try to diminish the Atlantic slave trade by stating that it happened from the Arabs

To be sure, in the light of this dim wit cowboy and Fox news ridiculous followers, it is a valid point

but, i went out of my way to say the Atlantic slave trade was worse for the slave taken to the Americas, and more brutal for the individual…but, what happened to black non Christian and non Islamic Africa , was equaly as brutal…the amount of slaves dying on the jornies to the slave ships was equaly brutal, the ripping apart of families was equaly as brutal, those slaves didnt go home for family visits

Huge amount of comments on here refer to the absolute humiliation and cruelty of white rapes of black slaves in America, it is one of the leading themes, yet , black African women in the Arab slave trade , in many cases, or the majority of cases , were actualy brought over to be exactly sex slaves…and in some cases, the mens genitals cut off to guard these women

People talk about the Arab slave could be freed in twenty years…what was the life span of people back then? How many people could survive twenty years of slavery? Were those words just wishful thinkingn from the Koran, but not played out on the ground like the Declaration of Independance?

I totaly get the point white people should be shut down if they try to diminish the Atlantic slave trade, but, it is really wrong to try to not address the reality of the Arab slave trade in black Africa, that lasted a thousand years and had its peak in the late 17 hundreds and mid 18 hundreds

and how both the Arab slave trade and Atlantic slave trade have been equaly guilty of destroying Afro diasporic culture…

bottom line, if people can say the Atlantic slave trade was worse, the true ramifications and huge scope of the Arab slave trade and what it did to black non Islamic Africa should be fully on the table

1. In my experience the Arab Trader argument is brought up as a deflection, not as a serious point in the spirit of debate. MOST people who bring it up are not serious students of history. Nor are they the sort who can admit that whites are a mix of good and evil like everyone else.

2. This blog mainly concerns racism in the US. That is where I and most commenters live. It is not a world history of Man’s Inhumanity to Man. So the slavery practised by White Americans is what matters most.

Are you aware of any slaves that were involuntarily brought to the American mainland, yet were freed, or manage to escape and return to the EXACT same people, group, village or place that they were taken from on the African continent??

I will respond to you thoroughly, but first I wanted to ask; why harp about intellectual dishonesty and then turn around and engage in it? If you are unaware of what it means and signs of it then I ask you to research it but I think it was just a waste of time to lecture someone on it and then use it. In the mean time I will point out where you have engaged in it and perhaps in your response to me you can answer with intellectual honesty.

“People like you are never as sanctimonious with other forms of slavery as you are with white slavery.”—And who or what are people like me? I never divulged any information about who I am so it really is odd that any reasonable individual of adult stature would rely on assumptions in an argument/debate. You lose credibility here, but you also engage in that intellectual dishonesty you kept talking about as you are relying on an assumption to make your case.

“I don’t know that for a fact with you, but I’d wager from the general tenor here that is the case given all the ‘white male this’ and ‘racism that’ going on.”—You don’t know that at all wager or no. You can not pin point what a person thinks or believe based on what others in here say. This is another form of intellectual dishonesty. You are basically attempting to dismiss my credibility based on what you have determined I might believe based on others.

“I say they don’t. Most slavery discussions are centered around white-black slavery, other forms are derided as ‘making excuses’.”—-And what authority do you have? Do you read minds or are you some psychic in your spare time? I say most don’t, so why is it that you view me as less credible when you endorse a “say so” as credibility? This is also a form of intellectual dishonesty in that you are making yourself the authority of something. Most discussions on slavery would be about white-black if that was the topic to begin with (transatlantic). Bringing in what other people did is deflection and it does not address the issues being made. If a person lived in another country then of course the issue would not be white-black as they were likely not affected by transatlantic in the sense of white-black. For example if the actual topic was arab slavery, then it would be ridiculous for my only retort to be whites in the Americas did it or everyone does it.

“Some I’m sure really are making excuses for slavery, but for the people who make it past that, who say “Black slavery is bad and gone.”—I would say very few make it to “Black slavery is bad and gone.” So few that this is the reason this post was created.

“the Arab Trader has its appeal to make those observing the debate aware that slavery has gone on long before and after the white man elected to stop it in his own countries, as these debates are often framed in terms of “LOOK WHAT WHITES DID!”.”— I am confused because you have listed a few different reasons why it is used so which one is it? Everyone knows that the transatlantic was not the beginning, so it would not make sense to use the Arab trader argument in a debate for that reason.

For example:

Man 1: Slavery in the Americas was terrible etc.

Man 2: Quit complaining because Arabs sold slaves too and it was worse.

If said individual was tracing back the history to show where it began then by all means I would accept that as valid when discussion the issues of slavery in the Americas, but just to bring it up because they don’t like people talking about white-black slavery is a bit ridiculous and is nothing more than deflection.

No one is claiming that Arab slavery was somehow better or a day in the park. This blog does not hide the fact that Arabs had black female sex slaves or that they castrated black boys or that slavery by Arabs probably still goes on:

“it is really wrong to try to not address the reality of the Arab slave trade in black Africa, that lasted a thousand years and had its peak in the late 17 hundreds and mid 18 hundreds”—I have absolutely no problem with addressing any type of slavery a person wishes, but I do have a problem about when people choose to bring it up and on Q it is always when American slavery or transatlantic slavery is mentioned.

Those same people do not care to or wish to discuss or address it any other time, so that leads me to believe that they are looking to deflect. Truth of the matter is that they each need to be discussed on their own merit because there is so much information to both, IMO.

“After one debater has ceded that black slavery is bad, there’s no point in beating the horse further unless there’s some other motive at play other than the spirit of debate”—Just because one person/debater admits to it being wrong does not mean every person agrees or believes that. What kind of faulty logic is this? Actually that is the debate stopper unless said individuals goes on to try to minimize or deflect. At which point he is opening the door for the debate to continue.

For example:

If I said drugs in the US are bad and should be made illegal, but Europe does drugs too and they are worse.

That statement then opens the door for someone to debate me on the matter of who has a worse drug problem. It is still the spirit of the debate, but one I opened to be further examined.

Yes, Abagond, and Sharina , what you are saying is what I had in mind…I would never diminish the Atlantic slave trade using the Arab slave trade , or want to change the subject to the Arab slave trade , when talking of the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade

But, I did get carded about that by you, Abagond…when I thought I mentioned up front I thought the Atlantic slave trade was worse (meaning you seemed to agree with someone about it used on me)

I could be wrong in my judgement, but I sure dont have a problem directly facing the history of slavery in the USA and also saying I know the legacy of slavery exists into today…like a festering wound

I would think white people would want to address that just to make society a better place without those kinds of festering wounds…we all would be better off if we did…but, you got so many examples of Fox nuts and guys like that cowboy..when i see that, I surly understand the need to shut that down

“Why harp about intellectual dishonesty and then turn around and engage in it?”- When I first jumped in, I was talking about the dishonest people who are most vociferous in their condemnation of white slave trade and give at most a slap on the wrist for everyone else. Kind of like how many atheists lump in Taoism and Wicca into their anti-religion rants even though they don’t give a shit about them, they just don’t want to be seen as partial and biased when they kick in Christianity’s teeth.

“And who or what are people like me?”- Don’t play coy. Birds of feather flock together. The people who go HYUCK HYUCK WHITE COWBOY! FAUX NEWS! Will be the same ones who overlook non-white atrocities in favor of emotionally appealing white ones.

“You can not pin point what a person thinks or believe based on what others in here say.”- It’s generally a good bet, see above response with people of generally the same mindsets congregating.

“And what authority do you have? Do you read minds or are you some psychic in your spare time?”- No but I do have eyes and I’ve observed most slavery talk centers around one kind that happened in the past. Your experiences may be different.

“I am confused because you have listed a few different reasons why it is used so which one is it?”- Why not both? The purpose of bringing it up in one context (online thread) is to see if one’s opponent is true to the principles of their anti-slavery rhetoric or will rationalize other trades away due to their white biases, the purpose of bringing it up in another context (real life) is for the benefit of any observers present.

“Everyone knows that the transatlantic was not the beginning, so it would not make sense to use the Arab trader argument in a debate for that reason.” – Not everyone knows that. I’d be surprised if the American school system even mentioned slavery in Egypt. For those that don’t know, the Arab Trader is useful for dispelling the mythical quality of the white tyrant, and while not excusing his crimes, it shows others not like him were just as fallible and prone to cruelty

“Just because one person/debater admits to it being wrong does not mean every person agrees or believes that.” – I never said as much, only that once that one person says “I agree, black slavery was bad.” then there’s no point in going “Well! Don’t you feel baaad about it!? Guilty?” to that one person. This holier-than-thou moral posturing is disingenuous when other legacies of cruelty are passed over. White people do this the most and it becomes a competition on who can feel the most bad about something, who has experienced the most privilege, like a post-modern confession, such as the We Are Not Trayvon Martin tumblr where a bunch of narcissists ego stroke each other over how not racist they are.

“Actually that is the debate stopper unless said individuals goes on to try to minimize or deflect.”- If the debate was “Was black slavery bad?” then yes it would. Most debates tend to have broader topics however.

How long? How long are we going to keep the slavery guilt thing going? Who does it help? Was my father a slave holder? ( N0 ) Was my grandfather a slave holder? ( No ) Were my great grand fathers slave holders? ( No ). Did I personally benefit from slavery ( No ) Have I been punished because of slavery? ( Yes ) Is that justice? ( No ) Does every person of color have the same opportunity or more that I, a white man? ( Yes ) Do Black’s disproportionately choose to have children out of wedlock, use drugs, drink alcohol in excess, commit violent crimes, engage in risky sexual behavior, and drop out of school? What causes their behavior? ( You tell me, but its a choice I choose not to make ) Blacks who don’t make those choices do quite well, and are often hated on by their own people. Are you going to call me a racist for my honest observations and opinions? ( Yes ). That is your problem not mine. Michael Jackson wrote a song about the Man in Mirror, and I’m not standing behind him when he wrote it. He in fact was a victim of his own sad choices.

“When I first jumped in, I was talking about the dishonest people who are most vociferous in their condemnation of white slave trade and give at most a slap on the wrist for everyone else……”—I get that, but does it really change anything I said? You called it intellectual dishonesty and that really is more what you are engaging in.

“Don’t play coy. Birds of feather flock together. The people who go HYUCK HYUCK WHITE COWBOY! FAUX NEWS! Will be the same ones who overlook non-white atrocities in favor of emotionally appealing white ones.”—I am not being coy and those are your words not mine. Unless I decided to tell you what I think or believe it is just noice and foolishness on your part to continue to assume.

“It’s generally a good bet, see above response with people of generally the same mindsets congregating.”— A bet is nothing more than a good bit of guess work, but based on your logic then you being here means you believe the same thing as those above…right?

“No but I do have eyes and I’ve observed most slavery talk centers around one kind that happened in the past. Your experiences may be different.”— Of course we have different experiences but because you say so does not make your experience any more credible than the homeless man on the street. It also does not change that you engaged in intellectual dishonesty no matter how you explain it.

“Why not both? The purpose of bringing it up in one context (online thread) is to see if one’s opponent is true to the principles of their anti-slavery rhetoric or will rationalize other trades away due to their white biases, the purpose of bringing it up in another context (real life) is for the benefit of any observers present.”—I have no problem with it being both but I have a problem when people fail to be consistent. If it is for both reasons then simply state that. As to the reasons both can be a reason for online and offline settings, but none of which you would know if it is or is not the reason unless you can read the minds of the individuals that chose to use it in an argument. This may simply be your reasoning alone.

“the Arab Trader is useful for dispelling the mythical quality of the white tyrant, and while not excusing his crimes, it shows others not like him were just as fallible and prone to cruelty”—I disagree because this solely depends on if you are talking to someone who already knows about slavery vs someone who has no clue. In most cases that I have witnessed the person brings this up even when they are talking to people who clearly know about other forms of slavery thus your reasoning is lost when dealing with those type of people. In this blog most if not all people in here know about other forms of slavery, so when the arab slave trader argument is brought up it simply becomes a deflection and not a means to let other know that others did it too. Even if it was a matter of the individual not knowing about it then it still becomes others did it too as the individual is seeking to place blame rather than acknowledge a wrong (this excludes those that actual do acknowledge).

“I never said as much, only that once that one person says “I agree, black slavery was bad.” then there’s no point in going “Well! Don’t you feel baaad about it!? Guilty?” to that one person.” — Then based on what you said is a bit confusing. What one person are you referring to? One out of the two people debating or one person in a group full of people discussing the issue? Based on your example the debate is then over and the other half is a last minute retort, but we are not talking about someone who simply makes the statement “I agree, black slavery was bad” and is then done. We are talking about someone who uses a deflection tactic such as the arab slave trader argument to point the finger elsewhere.

“while not excusing his crimes, it shows others not like him were just as fallible and prone to cruelty”—based on the definition of excusing then I would have to say you are incorrect. If said wrong was done and a person says “but such and such did it” then that is excusing on the bases that others did it. Sure it points out others who did it, but it is still a good old pass the blame game and nothing more.

Kungpow and Bic Bickel, see, its interesting that guys like you can be in denial of just how things have gone down in America…how at every step, obstacles and opresions are thrown into black Americans path…if slavery wasnt enough, after slaves were freed, they didnt get any benifits or help to really get going..carpet baggers came in and raked over everything and just when black Americans actualy got positions in the South after the war, Jim Crow came along, enforced by the absolutly violent racism of the Klan,and huge amounts of lynching. In the north, the draft riots demonstrated the northern kind of hate and racism towards black Americans…

As each decade went down, the face of white racism , with the legacy of slavery, kept rising its ugly head, from white flight and realaters in colusion with government created ghettos…the heavy huge southern migration in the fifities absolutly exasperated already strained forced black neighborhoods

i mean when i was born, maybe a year before, they just integrated baseball…i mean really , its just not that long ago that the most incredible , low leval, unbeleivable opressive racist discriminations went down ..and still raises its ugly head with the question we all should ask, how is racism going down today that we just dont perceive…like back in Jim Crow days where everyone takes it for granted its suposed to be that way

yes, the legacy of slavery still exists in Ameria, it exists in all the Americas that brought slaves from Africa to the Americas, Brazil has the same problems because of these festering wounds..

and Kungpao, (is that you duck?) ,Fox news and their followers are in denial about this legacy of slavery and how it is like a festering wound…when as Americans are we really going to take responsibility for this? Its just the right thing to do…take responsibility for these wounds we have left in various groups of people…but, black African slavery brought to America is absolutly a very deep wound that requires a special attention to the size it took on and the depth of what the reality is , and for the absolutly enormous contributions to our cultures made by desendants of slaves from Africa …ripping huge amounts of people from their homes and bringing them a long way and destroying their identity and culture is something that really is in denial by a lot of white people in America

this is a festering wound…you can see it in Brazil too…it could be dealt with if we all just took responsibility for what went down…whether we had slaves or not, or are racist or are not..its our society…do we want to just let a festering wound just keep going and get infected…its just plain as the nose on our faces that these are the reasons and origins for the problems we see plauging our societies that had large slave populations brought over from Africa in the Americas

I just looked at Bic’s comment as an example of deflection on a post that is not even about slavery but a weak argument used against it. I have found that white people end up bringing up slavery just as much if not more so than blacks in an effort to try to defend against just about any argument or accusation.

Are you aware of any slaves that were involuntarily brought to the American mainland, yet were freed, or manage to escape and return to the EXACT same people, group, village or place that they were taken from on the African continent??

Thank you much, Herneith, That wiki account was certainly an interesting (??) read.
I’m somewhat wary of the agenda of those who formed the references that wiki cited, especially the suggestion/suspicion that Cinque and others in his captured parties actually becoming slave traders themselves after returning to Africa.

From Wiki:

“The latter charge derived from oral accounts from Africa cited by the twentieth-century author William A. Owens, who claimed that he had seen letters from AMA missionaries suggesting Cinqué was a slave trader. Although some of the Africans associated with the Amistad *probably* did engage in the slave trade upon their return, most historians agree that the allegations of Cinqué’s involvement are not substantiated.”

“probably…” ??????????

If this allegation were factually true, one stills wonders why what would’ve caused those who were captured and targeted for slavery desiring to send others that looked like them into that external hell.

“How long? How long are we going to keep the slavery guilt thing going?”

You are looking at slavery in an extremely self-centred way – making it about your feelings. It seems you would have me shut up about an important part of the country’s history just to spare your feelings. Is that what you are saying?

I agree that Bic Bickel made it about his feelings. I don’t see anyone advocating that we should feel *GUILTY* about slavery and slavery’s aftermaths.

Facing up to the effect that slavery and genocide had on today’s society is simply looking at it squarely in the face, not sweeping it under the carpet and trying to delete it from our history books. And it is not about feeling guilty.

I beseech all Americans who are inclined to feel guilty about the slavery and genocide that white people perpetrated on its fellow residents to STOP FEELING GUILTY and start acknowledging the effect it has on its current day residents. Do not erase or whitewash the history. Acknowledge what needs to be done besides affirmative action and reparations to survivors.

new commentator here and I agree completely with the previous posters above me. Moral deflection is something that I see white Americans engaging in a lot when they’re caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking of course). It’s like saying that since everyone else is lying then it’s okay to lie too.

And Kiwi, you’re totally right about that tactic that whites use to shut Asian-Americans up when they point out racism. Just recently, I was on a website and someone in a thread that I started about digital yellowface also used that same tactic to try to get me to shut up. I rightly called him out on it. I think it was a he. Both white American men and women that I encountered online use this tactic so I don’t know but often it’s the white American men (or should I say boys since men know how to take responsibility for their words) that resort to this kind of thing when they can’t handle the truth from a POC.

I would never mention the Arab Slave Trade to justify any White evils. However, I would mention it to counter somebody if they stated that Whites were the only ones to have committed slavery. And yes, while they might not be on this blog, there are people who do believe that only Whites have committed things like slavery and ethnic cleansing. And if confronted by such people, I see nothing wrong with providing examples proving such a belief is incorrect.

[…] of one of humanity’s odious practices whenever white racism is discussed. Fellow blogger Abagond coined it the ‘Arab Trader Argument’, a tactic that (mostly) white people use to deviate from the sins of Caucasians by bringing up the […]